Social Compass

http://scp.sagepub.com

Socio-religious research as a professional role in the institutional

Church
J. Dhooghe
Social Compass 1969; 16; 227
DOI: 10.1177/003776866901600204
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://scp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/227

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Social Compass can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://scp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://scp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007

1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Socio-religious research

as a

professional

role in the institutional Church

J.

DHOOGHE
La recherche

quactivité professionnelle fait partie

son rôle professionnel elle présente
une série de caractéristiques communes aux autres professions. Ces caractéristiques sont modifiées par lengagement dans lEglise où le rôle est
intégré au niveau des valeurs et des normes. Le groupe professionnel des
sociologues constitue un premier groupe de référence pour la recherche
socio-religieuse. Mais il nest pas un groupe de référence positif en ce
sens quil ne fournit que peu de sanctions positives au chercheur socioreligieux dans laccomplissement de son rôle. La recherche socio-religieuse
sest constituée en in-group professionnel cest-à-dire que les autres
groupes de recherche sociologique ne fonctionnent pas comme groupe
de référence professionnel.
En tant que profession la recherche socio-religieuse est caractérisée par
un engagement par rapport à des valeurs de lEglise plus que par une
référence aux valeurs professionnelles. Il serait inexact de dire que les
seuls problèmes du rôle du chercheur socio-religieux sont la tension
entre son caractère professionnel et laliénation due à une dépendance à
légard de la bureaucratie de lEglise. Certains problèmes sont la conséquence de lengagement vis-à-vis de lEglise. Dans des conflits de nature
idéologique à lintérieur de lEglise, une intervention qui se veut professionnelle est perçue comme étant de nature idéologique; de ce fait la
recherche socio-religieuse risque dêtre idéologisée davantage, au détriment du caractère professionnel de son rôle.
de

lEglise

socio-religieuse

comme

en

tant

institution. Dans

doubt about it that Church-related research is in a rather

position nowadays. This, however, is not always well understood.
Sociologists, just as everybody else in the realization of their social role, prefer
positive to negative sanctions. They define their social role in a specific social
situation, which for socio-religious research contains several components and is
made up of different reference groups. One of the reference groups of socioreligious research is the Church in its different manifestations. Another one is the
group of fellow-sociologists. In seeking approval of their activities they may
refer themselves to peer groups. This is a usual characteristic of professions.
Sociologists will also look for positive rewards from the side of those groups of
Church members for which they want to perform a positive function either by
doing research that is demanded by Church officials, by influencing people with
specific social roles in the Church, or by influencing public opinion at large.
If none of these ambitions succeed, just as in any other social role, a specialist
dedicated to socio-religious research will have to look for a self-legitimation on
the basis of an inner-directed attitude or else modify his activities.
can be
uncomfortable

There

no

227
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

It is the hypothesis of this article that socio-religious research is part of an

institutional framework which includes the role expectations of different groups.
Conflicts and role uncertainty on the one hand, role definitions on the other hand
are the result of a process of social exchange, where different groups in relation
to socio-religious research command the values which are the goals of roleperformance of specialists in socio-religious research. Generally this situation is
recognized to a certain extent by researchers in the socio-religious field. They
define themselves as sociologists and more especially as sociologists of religion
and regret the fact that the Church does not frequently enough seek their advice,
give them opportunities for research, etc. The conflict-situation thus outlined is
surely real but gives an incomplete picture of the structural relations between
socio-religious research and its different reference-groups. Other problems should
be considered as well, such as the nature of the relationship between socio-religious
research and sociology, and the evolution of sociology of religion. With regard
to the Church as a reference group there can be no doubt about the fact that the
Church is not a monolith, but consists of different categories of social roles, all
which have not necessarily the same interests or the same viewpoints and which,
as a consequence, apply different criteria for evaluating the role of research in the
socio-religious field.
A sociological analysis of socio-religious research, religious sociology, pastoral
sociology, Church-related research, or whatever other labels there are to designate
this reality, is necessary for several reasons. It will throw some light on the functioning of the Church as an institution. The study of the institutional Church
should not limit itself to parishes and other traditional organizational patterns.
The activity of research and reflexion regarding the Church, generally in an
institutionalized context (according to patterned norms) done by committed
christians is perhaps less a feature of the institutional life of the Church than the
activity of theologians, but should not be excluded from it.
Research along these lines will make clearer the subject matter of socio-religious
research and the way it can relate itself to other types of sociology. It is surely
insufficient to admit that Church-related research is applied research.
Above all it is necessary to show that if the subject matter of socio-religious
research (this means the Church) goes through a crisis and if sociology of
religion is in evolution (that means the sociological understanding of religion
and of the Church), Church-related research must
most probably
suffer
from this crisis and evolution, and be in need of a redefinition of its premises.
Before analyzing properly the situation and the role of socio-religious research
-

of the main characteristics must be identified .

and reflexion is characterized by varying degrees of
in the Church. Some research is done by sociologists or
research centers, all of which are part of the bureaucracy of the Church. A strong
dependency from the Church hierarchy is generally recognized as an impediment
to good research and occasionally sociologists working within the frame-work of
the Church complain about the fact that they are not allowed to do the research
that they think is necessary; that certain subjects or certain conclusions are tabu;
that not only their conclusions but also the facts they present are not accepted,
some

Socio-religious research
organizational insertion

etc.

This situation which could be analyzed as the

religious specialists in the Church bureaucracy, or

of alienation of sociousual conflict between staff

degree
as a

228
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

and line in an organization, should be distinguished from another phenomenon,

which is complementary. This concerns the degree of commitment of these
specialists to the Church. This degree of commitment may take different forms.
The degree of commitment to the Church both in its religious reality and its
social expressions (which are in different degrees institutionalized), should be
distinguished from a commitment to a particular field of sociological study. This
field of sociological study is in most cases the Church.

__

A.

THE PROFESSIONAL PEER-GROUPS AS A REFERENCE-

GROUP

Let us consider first the case of the commitment to the field of study which is
the Church. Sociology as a profession functions as a reference group. In the field
of sociology, the object of socio-religious research is often evaluated in accordance
with its sociological relevancy. A second basis for evaluating is the nature of the
value-orientations of its practioners.
1.

The church

as a

subject

matter

It becomes increasingly clear that socio-religious research and sociology of religion

should not be equated. This is shown by the present discussions on secularization,
by the treatment of civil religion, etc. On the other hand socio-religious research
may analyse topics which are more related to the sociology of organizations, of
professions, of education, etc.
In a situation of interaction with non-understanding Church authorities and
possible latent conflict-situation which result from the difference between what
the sociologist thinks he is able to offer, and what the Church management asks
him, the sociologist may find legitimation in reference to his own professional
field, namely sociology. This legitimation coming from other sociologists is done
on the basis of the contribution of
socio-religious research to sociology and by
judging socio-religious research by accepted scientific standards. Both, the attempts
of socio-religious research to legitimate itself by reference to sociology of religion
and acknowledgment by this group of peers is a fact. It is doubtfull, however,
just how much these attempts to legitimation are strengthening the position of
socio-religious research.
It is not the intention here to retrace once again the history of the ratler deep
cleavage that existed for a long time between sociology in general, the classical
sociology of religion on the one hand, and beginning socio-religious research on
the other. Suffice it to say that socio-religious research for a considerable time
has put itself deliberately out of the main trend of sociology in trying to get the
attention of the Church authorities. One may further put it rather crudely this
way that, shortly after socio-religious research had found its links with sociology
of religion, the scene changed and the relevancy of Church-oriented research for
understanding religion as a sociological phenomenon was put into question.
Perhaps the severest criticism of what Luckmann calls denominational sociology
of religion has been put forward by him as early as 1963. 1 In this work and
in the writings of several other authors, criticism moves along three lines: a)
denominational sociology which restricts its attention to a Church-related religion
229
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

of answering really important sociological questions, b) the subject

of this type of study is rapidly becoming marginal in society; c) socioreligious research has ideological assumptions, which are incompatible with scientific work.
It is in tliis context not so important to know whether these criticisms are true
or false; the important thing is that they necessarily bring about the possibility
of a role-conflict for the specialist dedicated to socio-religious research. The
reference to his peer group must consequently have an ambivalent character. The
cleavage between sociology and socio-religious research is continued and the
self-legitimation of socio-religious research will have to take into account this
strain.
is not

capable

matter

2.

Denominational sociology

Matthes thinks that, because of the criticism made from different sides, the
empirical Church- and socio-religious research is presently going through a period
of stagnation. He affirms, that during the last few years nearly no research work
in this field has been published, which has been able to give new impulses to the
themes and methods of sociology of religion. The critical discussion of the scientific basis of sociology of religion and the need for new theoretical frames of
reference seem to paralyse empirical research at the moment. (Exceptions are
made, e.g. for the study of Lenski.) Research on Church-oriented religion and
socio-religious research should however not be equated as the example shows. But
even the study of Church-oriented religion is being criticized: One may wonder
whether it possesses the theoretical and methodological resources to analyse and
interpret adequately even that phenomenon (in the case: Church related reli-

gion). 3
Apart from the fact that denominational sociology of religion often fosters a
parochial outlook, that matters of faith are excluded from research, that methods
are often uncritical and on occasion
primitive, the criticism of Luckmann points
to the pragmatic orientation and the absence of theory in the definition of the
problem.4 The main reason, however, why important sociological questions cannot
be answered by the denominational sociology of religion is
still according to
Luckmann - its narrow positivistic orientation which reflects itself in the way
it treats problems of secularisation and the shrinking reach of the Churches. 5
This, of course, is a rather hard criticism of socio-religious research which did
not want to have anything to do with positivism of earlier sociology of religion.
-

3.

l.r the

jubl*ect matter still reletallt ,??

with regard to the contributions

Criticism
made to the sociology of religion may
not be the worst to befall it. After all there is not one scientific truth. Different
views of what are sociologically important topics may exist. The same can be said
with regard to the choice of the subject matter. The main question here is to
know if Church-related religion is disappearing and Churches are becoming
marginal phenomena in society. In that case, there would be more important
problems to study, even for socio-religious research.
In the well known discussions on sect and Church phenomena more often than
not the Church seems to be considered an endpoint in the evolution. 6 For Robert
N. Bellah 7 five stages of religious evolution can be distinguished. After noting
230
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

that the symbolization of mans relation to the ultimate conditions of his existence,
is no longer the monopoly of any groups explicitly labeled religious, he states that
the assumption in most of the major Protestant denominations is that the Church
member can be considered responsible for himself. This trend seems likely to
continue with an increasingly fluid type of organization in which many special
purpose sub-groups form and disband. The role of the Church where each
individual must work out his own solutions, would be to provide him with a
favorable environment without imposing on him a set of prefabricated answers.
Luckmann points to the rise of a pervasive consumer orientation 8 in modern
industrial societies, which put the Churches in the market situation described by
Berger 9, while the social function of these institutions of expressing the
hierarchy of meaning in the world view cannot any longer be fulfilled. 10
Religion, identified with the expression of themes of ultimate significance withdraws to the private sphere and becomes syncretistic and vague 11 even at the
danger of letting Rome burn. 12
This sociological thesis, however, meets with criticism. According to Matthes,
studies of Church-related religion are necessary because otherwise there can be
no study of christianity. Study of christianity is necessary because of the historical
importance of christianity and because of the deep influence of christianity on
the concept formation and problems dealt with by the sociology of religion. It
would be impossible to study historically non-determined religion. Therefore
Church-related sociology should try to review and renew its theoretical frame of
reference. 13 Greinacher 14 on the other hand disagrees with the view of Luckmann
and thinks that the Church will reform itself and become a Gemeindekirche.
Schreuder remarks that it is not yet empirically proven that these new noninstitutionalized forms of faith really can be defined as forms of faith. 15
The importance of Church-related religion is consequently a subject of sociological
discussion. The different views presented here, would normally have their repercussion on socio-religious research. We touch here upon the problem of value-free
sociology which in the social role definition of the specialist in socio-religious
research, becomes linked with is commitment to the Church.

Ideological assumptloiis
as is well known - rather apprehensive about the selfSociology at large is
definition of socio-religious research. This perhaps even more than the two
previously mentioned points, challenges the commitment to particular forms of
institutionalized religion.
There is of course nothing wrong with commitments even in sociology. This will
be developed further on. The point is here that the commitment towards the
Church in several cases leads to the adoption of assumptions and to institutionalized
role patterns which enter into conflict with current value-orientations of sociologists.
4.

These value-conflicts again are the cause of an ambivalent attitude of socioreligious research students to the peer group of sociologists and vice versa. We
want to consider here only the way these commitments affect the self-definition
of the professional role in socio-religious research with reference to the sociological

profession.
This self-definition takes different forms. Some say that socio-religious research
is not really sociology but a kind of theology. For N. Greinacher there is a
231
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

distinction between sociology of religion and pastoral sociology. The latter has
the task to carry out theological analysis of the present as situation of the selfrealization of the Church. 1 Pastoral sociology in this sence should, however, still
be distinguished from pastoral theology.
Somehow one should first establish the facts 17 and interpret these theologically.
It is rather clear that these specialists in socio-religious research do not choose
sociologists as a reference group. Not only commitment to the Church becomes
the main variable but positive sanction of their role definition is expected from
theologians whom they consider as their professional peer group. And quite normally sociologists will think that if one does not refer oneself to the judgment
of the sociologists as a peer group, one is no longer in the field of sociological
research.
Others feel that socio-religious research is not sufficiently legitimized if reference
is made only to the reasons why sociologists think sociology is important. The
role of sociology and socio-religious research for the Church is not justified in
the same way as the role of other branches of sociology are with regard to human
behavior and to social praxis.
To legitimize socio-religious research in the Church, additional reasons are found.
Reference may be made to the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes and its
insistance on the solidarity between the people of God and humanity and the
task to discern the signs of the time.
To help the Church realize this would be a task for socio-religious research. But
this supposes on the other hand again a spiritual and theological basis for socioreligious research. 18
It is quite clear that every activity which is developed within of with reference
to a specific institutional frame-work has to legitimize itself in terms of the
value-orientations proper to the institution. This is true for all sociologists if
they want to realize anything at all in the institutional frame-work in which they
are inserted. This also goes for sociological research at universities to the degree
to which it is executed by contract with representatives of an institution.
This constitutes a permanent tension with the proper value-orientations of
sociology. Sociologists tend to consider that the institution should accept the proper
legitimation of sociology as a profession, and not to ask for additional legitimation
in terms of the institutional values. A commitment to institutional values may
endanger the specific professional orientation of the sociologist, but will make
him more acceptable to the institution.
Now it would seem that this poses more problems with regard to the Church
than it would with regard to certain other social institutions.
A third problem in this regard, posed by the tension between the commitment to
the Church and the reference to sociologists, consists in the fact that all the
aforementioned role-tensions have resulted in a form of group reaction which
led people involved in socio-religious research to form their own associations. By
this process the professional peer group is not any longer constituted bij the other
members of the sociological profession, but by the group of students who have
more or less analogous problems with regard to sociology at large. In this way both
the latent tension with the group of other sociologists and the commitment to the
Church as a main value-orientation become institutionalized. Legitimation of socioreligious research as a professional occupation with regard to a social institution
is made in terms of this reference group which furnishes also the standards for
232
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

professional
provided by

evaluation of work done. Professional sanctions and rewards

are

the

in-group.
having institutionalized itself in this way and having
developed an in-group for the allocation of professional rewards and sanctions
and the promotion of its social function as it has defined it itself, socio-religious
research still continues to consider sociology as a reference group, although the
nature of the reference may sometimes be changed. So, for instance, the review
Social Con~ yrf.r is described as a review of FERES, the aim of which is to help
Catholic research workers scientifically and to make the presence of Catholics
felt in the sociological world. 19 In another publication it is said that socioreligious research has an apologetic value in that the publication of exact data,
obtained in a scientific way by Catholics, illustrates to everyone their desire for
lucidity and truth. These apologetics are supposed to be very convincing with
regard to scientific circles. 20
What is proposed here is that socio-religious research done by Roman-Catholics
as Roman-Catholics is important. There seems to be no need, however, to make
the same type of presence felt in the field of industrial sociology for example.
This too, though is a discipline which is very much applied to guide social
behavior and human praxis.
If the commitment to the Church and its value-orientations become expressed in
an institutionalized way, one should ask if this institutionalization is not subject
It remains true that,

to the shift in and the evolution of the dominant value-orientations of the

institutional body towards which socio-religious research refers itself. This seems
indeed to be the case.
It is true for Roman-Catholic sociologists who want to make their work relevant
for the life of the Church. Donald N. Barrett, commenting upon the history of
the American Catholic Sociological Society 21 states that the Society was founded
in 1940 to offer a medium to scholars to aid in the development of a sociology
consistent with fundamental truth. Since then a shift has occurred. In 1951 is was
noted that the tendency among sociologists was to develop an objective approach
separate from theology and philosophy yet without ignoring them. This led
quite naturally to the question in the period 1958-1963: why should there exist a
Catholic sociological association ? and the subsequent change of the title of the
journal from Amerrcan Catholic Sociological Ret~iew to Sociological Analy.ris.
A Journal in the Sociology of Religion. The parellelism between this evolution
and the evolution in many other Roman-Catholic institutions and associations
such as political parties, trade unions, medical work is quite remarkable. They also
adapted both their legitimation system and to a lesser degree their institution and
its activities. (The American Catholic Sociological Association still exists.) While
in the beginning legitimation was sought as a defense against a hostile (nonchristian) environment or as a service to the organized Church (collecting of data
for pastoral management), the shift in the dominant values in the Church (which
without doubt sociologists also helped to bring about) made necessary by the
need for adaptation of the Church as an institution, caused also a shift in the
legitimation and the official goals of institutionalized socio-religious research.
This then, is realized again not by referring to the sociological profession, but by
referring to new value-orientations of the Church, for example as stated in the
documents of Vatican II. The article of Donald N. Barrett is one example; the
reformulation of the objectives of FERES as helping the Church to realize its

233
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

mission, but also as

world, is another. 22

contribution to the

dialogue

between the Church and the

coping with the problem with the tension provoked by the

reference to sociology on the one hand and a commitment to the Church on the
other hand consists in claiming a double competence both as a sociologist and
as a theologian. Sometimes this is done in a rather unproblematic way. The same
specialist will at one time say to speak as a sociologist and at another time as a
specialist in pastoral theology. Often, however, the two approaches become confused. This approach is possible according to Schreuder because practically most
European sociologists of religion have had theological education. 23 In a different
approach which may be combined with the former one, it is argued that a
sociologist is not a passionless spectator but also a human member of society
and of the Church. He has to play a critical role in society and not just be a
social technician. Moreover it is very hard for any sociologist to be value-free,
and the ideal of objectivity of the physical sciences cannot be realized completely
in sociology. Consequently he should have the courage to state his opinions. 24
Th. M. Steeman means: Without giving up his objectivity, or rather precisely
because of his objectivity the social scientist is able to see sharper the weaknesses
and strengths, the positive and negative aspects of social policy, the nature and
basic direction of social movements. And here the social responsibility of the
social scientist requires that he makes his knowledge available and takes part in
the process by promoting positive values. Value-free research, one could say,
points to research into values and then engages the moral responsibility of the
social researcher. 25
Here some value-orientations of the sociological profession are put into question.
The need to distinguish between socio-religious research and sociology of religion
becomes less marked. A commitment to religious value-orientations becomes
possible because at least most of the time, sociology is not what it claims to be.
Moreover, because the sociological profession is increasingly aware of the validity of
the thesis that Wertfreiheit does not exist, and that the sociologist has a social responsibility, students who reason along these lines have a particularly strong
A fourth way for

argument.

general position, is much more likely to be accepted by sociologists. Of

it does not do entirely away with certain objections to denominational
sociology made by Luckmann, nor with the apprehension of sociologists about
the fact that Catholic sociologists should be organized separately. Sociologists tend
to organize themselves around certain fields of study such as urban sociology,
medical sociology, etc. But the organization of certain schools of thought is not
admitted, although informal groupings are a fact. It is not likely that structuralfunctionalists, or the advocates of verstehende sociology will form associations.
On the other hand sociologists in their work are often committed to values as
democracy, organizational efficiency, social development, increasing rationality,
etc., although these commitments do not form a basis for associations of
This,

as a

course

sociologists .
B.

SOCIO-RELIGIOUS RESEARCH AS A COMMITMENT TO

THE CHURCH

If commitment

to the Church

as

living reality

and

social institution is

234
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

an

important feature of socio-religious research, we will have to ask ourselves how

this manifests itself. Three types of questions have to be answered. If socioreligious research is willing to maintain a certain amount of tension with the
peer group of sociologists, how is it then relating in a professional way to the
Church. A second question has to do with the consequences of this commitment
for value-free research. Finally we will have to adress ourselves to the object of
the commitment which is the Church.
An analysis of socio-religious research and reflexion, as a commitment to the
Church should start by distinguishing the various relational characteristics this
social role can take. Thus far we have analysed the relation between the role of the
pastoral sociologist to the sociological profession as a peergroup. Because pastoral
sociologists define their role as a professional role, considerable importance is
attached to the legimitation of their work and endeavor with reference to peer
groups. Insufficiency of socio-religious research, however, is often attributed not
to professional failure but to the unwillingness of the Church bureaucracy to
promote socio-religious reflexion in a professional way. The degree of organizational insertion in the Church is, thus, an important variable. The role of pastoral
research may be bureaucratized to a varying degree by the performance of stafffunctions in an organization.
As a bureaucratized role, socio-religious research and reflexion is typically controlled by the bureaucratic hierarchy. Performance is controlled by directives received
from superiors rather than by self-imposed standards and peer group surveillance
as is the case among professionals. 26 To the degree that Church authority, either
by employing sociologists or by developing contractual relationships in view of
specific research, imposes the subjects for research and the ideological or other limits
within which the ref lexion has to proceed, one could say that the role of the
socio-religious student becomes part of the Church bureaucracy. In this context
he has but limited alternatives. According to Merton, the bureaucratic intellectual
can accommodate his own values and special knowledge to the values of the
policy-makers; he can seek to alter prevailing policies or respond in terms of a
schizoid dissociation between his own values and those of the bureaucracy, by
regarding his function as purely technical and without value-implications. 27
That this leads to role strains and role ambivalency for the specialist is generally
recognized and needs little comment. To the degree that the pastoral sociologist
takes the first or the third attitude described by Merton one would suspect that
the reference made to the professional peer group becomes less important.
In order to understand that in this conflict-situation more is involved than the
well-known conflict between the professional role and the bureaucratic role, we
have to look also to the other forms the role of socio-religious reflexion may take.
The student of religious sociology presents himself also as an unattached intellectual. 28 This means that as a sociologist he does not work on instruction of the
Church bureaucracy. His clientele is not the bureaucracy but the larger public
instead. Of course he will have less opportunity to do empirical research, but this
does not affect his possibility to put his theoretical and general knowledge to
work. (Indeed, a large amount of writing in the socio-religious field is theoretical,
that means: is not a report of empirical research.)
There are most probably no specialists in socio-religious research who are not
as
Church-members and a considerable number of them are
part of
priests
the Church organization. If they are not part of the Church bureaucracy in their
-

235
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

role of

are in various capacities teaching at Catholic

other Church-related institutions different from Church

pastoral sociologist, they

universities, seminaries

or

management.
This fact shows clearly the importance of commitment to the Church as a living
religious and social reality in the role definition of the socio-religious specialist.
It affects the professional character of his role.
evaluative
is a positive cathectic
Commitment - according to Etzioni
orientation of an actor to an object. Commitment may vary in intensity. If the
involvement is negative instead of positive, it is called alienation. 29
In this sense the unattached intellectuals are not really entirely unattached. As it
became clear in the foregoing paragraphs this commitment changes the quality of
the reference towards sociological peer groups. Does it also modify the professional
character of the role with regard to the clientele: the Church and its representatives ?
Conflicts may arise not just between the tendency towards a professional attitude
and a bureaucratic insertion, but also between the nature of the commitment to
the Church and this professional attitude and finally between his commitment to
Church values and possible bureaucratic insertion. This can be shown by an
example: commenting upon a presidential adress, Th. M. Steeman writes: The
sociologist of religion, by virtue of his professional acquaintance with the situation,
may have at his disposition data about and insights into the problems that should
be faced by the Church ... It can happen that ecclesiastic authorities will not
permit the publication of certain unfavorable data, and even actually prevent
the social scientist under his jurisdiction from doing so. Would not, one asks, the
professional responsibility of the sociologist, both vis-a-vis the Church and visa-vis the profession as a whole, require that he, even if he is working in a
Church context, be free to publish and to discuss openly the outcome of his
research? And if, in a particular situation, ecclesiastic authorities are shocked by
these results and are inclined to hide them, is it then the fault of the social scientist ? And is, in the end, the Church not better served by a truthful picture of
her vitality. 30
-

Several

be made with regard to this text. If a professional pastoral

in the execution of his social role finds himself in a bureaucratic
situation, it is quite normal that his contributions are meant to guide the policy of
that particular Church management. Quite clearly in that particular role he is not
supposed to let other interests predominate in his role performance, which is
characterized by contractual and hierarchical relationships. This may and often
does, lead to alienation, as happens in all bureaucracies. Non-compliance with
bureaucratic role-expectations will of course endanger or make impossible his
social position in the Church bureaucracy or the future contractual relations which
he expects. If on the other hand he is, in his role-performance as a pastoral
sociologist, not attached to the bureaucratic structure, the possibility to express his
professional opinions may still be influenced by the nature of the other social roles
he plays in the Church. Then it is a question of knowing to what degree rolesegmentation is admitted in the Church. A pastoral sociologist teaching at a
university will have greater freedom than a pastoral sociologist in the service of
a diocese. Will a social scientist who is a
priest have the same professional
autonomy as a lay social scientist?
The interesting thing to note, however, is that the professional interest of
comments can

sociologist

236
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

is seen as parallel with the real interest

of the Church although they are perhaps in conflict with the opinions of Church
authorities.
This means not only a rejection of the disadvantages of a bureaucratized role
(although the advantages of this role from a professional point of view are
highly demanded), but the wish to play a political role in the Church. On the
basis of their commitment to the Church, more than in other professions, pastoral
sociologists will accomplish and apply their knowledge in situations where their
professional advice is not specifically demanded. Indeed, in the typical professional
role, advice is normally but given when it is requested by the client and this is
done in an attitude of affective neutrality. 31 Students in the field of pastoral
sociology do not want to do this only, but also want to influence public opinion
in the Church. Publishing of results is often done not to make a contribution to
professional knowledge but in order to influence Church management by indirect
ways and to reform the Church. This attitude is more frequent among pastoral
sociologists than among physicians who would like to reshape public health, or
political and industrial sociologists to reform the institutional order about which
they feel competent.
In this situation additional questions become relevant. If there is a real or supposed conflict between commitment to the Church and professional attitude, to
which role-component Church-authorities are giving preference ? And what would
be the nature of the commitment required? What would be the choice of the

promoting socio-religious knowledge

pastoral sociologist in the same situation?

So for example, for the theologian E. Schillebeeckx sociology of religion is an
empirical discipline but because it implies a quest for meaning, the sociologist has
32
to believe himself.

The degree to which commitment to the Church becomes a main variable, both
for the social scientist and for the Church bureaucracy, professional specialization
seems to become less important. If a professionalist attitude were
predominant, the
Church would perhaps, more than it does now, call upon different specialists in
the fields of organization sociology, sociology of religion, educational sociology,
group dynamics, etc. The fact that the student in socio-religious research has a
rather polyvalent role is also an indication of the importance of his commitment.
There appears to be one mechanism which permits us to reduce possible conflicts
between commitment and professionalism. We have seen that students in socioreligious research mainly on the basis of their ideological commitments have
constituted their own professional peer groups, confronted as they were with
the rather ambivalent attitude of the larger group of sociologists. It is these peer
groups which guarantee the professional expertness of its members by giving
support, admitting social scientists or refusing them, allocation of professional
reward and sanctions, etc.
The constitution of socio-religious in-groups has a positive influence upon the
attitude of the institutional Church in that it helps to overcome the mistrust they
have vis-a-vis sociology in general. A minimal social concensus is created and the
establishment of socio-religious research as a sub-cultural form of the larger
Church cultural system, reassures both the students in the field and the representatives of the institution. This, however, is at the same time a situation of instable
equilibrium because of the role tensions mentioned before and also because of
the nature of the commitments to the Church of socio-religious research.
-

237
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

NATURE OF THE COMMITMENT

If we were to systematize a little the influence on professional role-performance
of the commitment to the Church, then three main forms could be distinguished. 33
The pastoral sociologist may contribute to further knowledge in the socioreligious field under the assumption that progress of sociological and socioreligious knowledge will at least in the long run be beneficial to the Church
(as we have seen not all sociologists would agree with this assumption). He may
do so also because he knows that in the dialectical relationship between human
praxis and reflexion, the component reflexion may at times necessitate a rather
long but valuable detour towards praxis. He can secondly put the accent on the
divulgation of his knowledge and professional opinions. Here the reference groups
are more clearly different categories of the Church population. Or he may apply
his knowledge either by collecting information, or giving professional advice or
else intervene actively in a way which makes the separation between research and
praxis nearly inexistant as in activities of planned change. 34
With each of these types of activities he is likely to address himself to a different
clientele in the Church. This has consequences for his role-performance in the
Church.
This situation is complicated by the nature of his commitments to the Church.
If one would follow Glock and Stark, one could say that his commitment may be
situated on the level of ultimate values, beliefs or on the level of norms. 35G
One could add that this commitment may be concretized by an adhesion to the
documents of Vatican II or particular forms of Church organization, or particular
aspects of the Church institution (such as tendencies of modern theology), or
certain utopian concepts.
As we have seen before, the ideal of value-free research is not a predominant
ideal in socio-religious research, either because it leads the social scientist to be an
impossible passionless spectator without social responsibility and which is never
realized in social science, or because socio-religious research is too closely linked
with theology, or because anyway the mere collection of data for Church
management has already value-implications. Objectivity is sought after within the
limits of the basic commitment, which constitutes normally the limits of the
research being done.
All this constitutes real but rather limited problems in an institutional Church
which has not only a clear hierarchy of values and in which a value-concensus is
largely realized or supposed to be present, but where the different categories of
Church-members are socially and organizationally well situated in the total picture.
But in a Church in movement which experiences conflicts both with regard to
values and norms and with regard to her organizational forms, things become
different.
The difficulty of doing value-free research and the importance of commitment
in the socio-religious role would normally lead socio-religious students to new
forms of role-insecurity. This, however, will only happen to the degree that they
are willing to criticize their own commitment. Moreover, to the
degree that conflicts in the Church and tentatives for renewal and change are based on ideological
factors, the pastoral sociologist will be considered more and more as playing a
role on the ideological level. On this level it is hard to evaluate professional
expertness. In a situation where there are divergent ideological viewpoints, all
-

238
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

tend to be considered by their partisans as being based

reasoning. The claim that socio-religious arguments are the arguments
will be forgotten, and only their ideological content will be judged.

viewpoints

on

of

expert
experts

These difficulties manifest themselves still in a latent way on the different levels
of socio-religious activity.
The choice of themes for research and reflexion is the first level where commitment manifests itself.
Past commitment to improving the organizational rationality of the Church (studies
on pastoral planning, statistics, etc.) have left socio-religious research without
proper categories with which to study topics relating to newer value-commitments,
such as those presented in the documents of Vatican II. 36
There is also a growing feeling that socio-religious research should not study
exclusively the problems proposed by Church bureaucracy. In formulating relevant
questions the socio-religious researcher may take increasing interest in other
categories of Church-members and their views on the praxis in the Church. These
may be theologians, moral theologians, lay people etc.
All of these categories have problem definitions with regard to the Church, which
are more or less different according to their social position in the Church and the
ideological view in the Church which characterizes them.
The increasing tendency to divulge socio-religious professional opinions is in part
meant to influence a broader Church opinion, in order to shape new attitudes
towards the Church.
The new commitments of the socio-religious researcher are not well integrated.
And this can hardly cause surprise if one sees the dissension on values in the
Church and the different types of commitment present.
So, socio-religious students may want to contribute to increasing organizational
rationality in the Church. This means then that they really want the advantages
of a better organization, but not
the
according to their commitments
disadvantages, such as the creation of bureaucrats and technocrats. Instead they
want in a complementary way the advantages of rather Gemeinschaft-like
religiosity without its inconveniences. But they fail to indicate how these two may
be combined. Church authorities should be charismatic leaders in a rational
organization. Priests, according to some, should become professionalized. The
resulting autonomy of this profession should be combined with rational planning
but at the same time these priests should play a charismatic role, which would then
be less Ambtscharisma and more personal charisma. The examples could be
-

multiplied.
It would not be difficult to find in socio-religious writings the dominant value
dissensions that characterize the Church in general. And it is not surprising that,
with the role definition adopted by socio-religious research, the main need becomes
the elaboration of a Realutopie 37 on the basis of which both study and professional advice can proceed.

NOTES
1.

Thomas Luckmann, Das Problem der Religion in der modernen Gesellschaft, Freiburg
im Breisgau, 1963. References are to The invisible religion, New York, 1967, which is a
revised edition of the earlier book; cfr. also: P. Berger and Th. Luckmann, Sociology of
religion and sociology of knowledge, Sociology and Social Research, 1963, vol. 47, nr. 4.

239
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

2. J. Matthes, Religion und Gesellschaft, Reinbeck bei Hamburg, 1967, pp. 105-117.
3. T. Luckmann, The invisible religion, op. cit., p. 26.
4. Ibidem, pp. 20-21.
5. Ibidem, pp. 21-23.
6. The most notable exception is the way Th. ODea treats his dilemmas of institutionalization.
7. R. N. Bellah, Religious evolution, Am. Soc. Review, June 1964, pp. 358-374.
8. T. Luckmann, op. cit., p. 98.
9. P. Berger, Ein Marktmodell zur Analyse ökumenischer Prozesse, International Yearbook
for the Sociology of Religion, 1965, I. pp. 235-249.
10. T. Luckmann, op. cit., p. 80.
11. Ibidem, p. 99.
12. Ibidem, p. 117.
13. J. Matthes, op. cit., p. 117.
14. N. Greinacher, Die Kirche in der städtischen Gesellschaft, Mainz, 1966, p. 238.
15. O. Schreuder, Gestaltwandel der Kirche, Olten, 1967, p. 30.
16. N. Greinacher, op. cit., p. 243.
17. Ibidem, p. 241.
18. F. Houtart, Préface in J. Laloux Manuel dinitiation à la sociologie religieuse, Paris,

1967.
19. F. Houtart, and J. Remy, A survey of sociology as applied to pastoral work, The
pastoral mission ofthe Church, vol. 3, Glen Rock, 1965, p. 101.
20. F. Houtart, Etat actuel de la sociologie au service de la pastorale, Pastorale daujourdhui,
Paris, 1962.
21. D. N. Barrett, The sociology of religion. Science and action, Sociological Analysis,
1967, Vol. 28 nr 4, pp. 175-183.
22. Plan dactivités de la Fédération internationale des Instituts de Recherches Sociales et
Socio-Religieuses 1967-1970, Social Compass, 1967, vol. 14 no 2, pp. 139-146.
23. O. Schreuder, op. cit., p. 16.
24. Ibidem, pp. 12-16.
25. Th. M. Steeman, Report of the VIII International Conference of Religious Sociology,
Social Compass, 1965, vol. 12 no 4/5, p. 324.
26. Peter M. Blau, and R. W. Scott, Formal organizations, San Francisco, 1962, pp. 62-63.
27. R. K. Merton, Social theory and social structure, Glencoe, 1957, p. 219.
28. cfr. for this term: Ibidem, p. 212.
29. A. Etzioni,
A comparative analysis of complex organizations, Glencoe, 1961, pp. 8-9.
30. Th. M. Steeman, op. cit., p. 325.
31. P. M. Blau, and R. W. Scott, op. cit., p. 61.
32. E. Schillebeeckx, Wereld en Kerk, Bilthoven, 1966, p. 56.
33. cfr. Robert K. Merton, and D. Lerner, Social scientists and research policy, D. Lerner,
and H. Lasswell, The policy sciences, Stanford, 1959, p. 282.
34. cfr. R. Dahrendorf, Soziologie und Praxis, Die angewandte Aufklärung, München,

1963, pp. 197-207.

35. Ch. Y. Glock, and R. Stark, Religion and
36. D. N. Barrett, op. cit., p. 177.
37. N. Greinacher, op. cit., pp. 293-296.

society

in

tension, Chicago, 1965,

240
Downloaded from http://scp.sagepub.com by Oscar Amat on November 19, 2007
1969 Social Compass. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

p. 176.